Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 >as long as we have street-dogs, I hope the issue of garbage disposal >will not be resolved in countries like India and Sri Lanka,because >there will be more starvation and dogs dying of starvation and of >wounds due to fighting (and of course more dog-bites inflicted on >humans too!). If you do not eliminate garbage from the streets, you will always have street dogs, feasting on the garbage and the rats who also eat the garbage -- and you will always have annoyed people poisoning dogs, shooting dogs, clubbing dogs, etc., along with dogs suffering from intestinal worms, mange, and the many other untreated conditions that afflict street dogs. If your goal is to reduce the universe of suffering, you need to look at the bigger picture, and not be distracted from doing what reduces suffering the most by the temporary side effects. You also need to take a closer look at the situation. Street dogs who have come to depend on a particular source of refuse will not just starve if it no longer exists. They will look for it and hope for it to reappear for a few days, and then either find other local food sources or move on to other places where abundant garbage remains -- albeit perhaps in temporary custody of monkeys, who may be chased back to the trees, to their great advantage whether they know it or not, because monkeys who take to living on the streets tend to run afoul of some of the same unpleasant fates as street dogs, but also may be captured and sold to laboratories. > Until we have enough shelters or at least regular feeders for strays, >I don't think animal-welfare-association should promote better garbage >disposal-systems. You will never have enough shelters to accommodate all the dogs if you do not reduce the carrying capacity of the habitat. Sterilization keeps the dogs who currently occupy a habitat from breeding up to the carrying capacity. Reducing the carrying capacity prevents more dogs from migrating in. You have to do both, or have street dogs forever. Sterilizing street dogs in absence of reducing carrying capacity is basically just inviting dogs from elsewhere to come and be poisoned, shot, clubbed, and so forth. -- Merritt Clifton Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE P.O. Box 960 Clinton, WA 98236 Telephone: 360-579-2505 Fax: 360-579-2575 E-mail: anmlpepl Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; for free sample, send address.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 13, 2009 Report Share Posted August 13, 2009 Man I am glad u caught those! If there were less garbage in the street, community dogs and let¹s call them what they are would turn more to humans at dinner time by sitting on the front stoop and perhaps get some better uncontaminated leftovers that way. Either that or a bucket of thrown boiling water, depending on the disposition of the stoop owners. But please, let¹s clean the stinking mess up regardless! And as Clifton says, forgettabout shelters. They don¹t work, anywhere. Especially in Nepal, where there are no strays from where did they stray from in the first place? - there are community dogs born on the streets and in the fields that need proper treatment & care (ABC, medicines, food, and perhaps a nice guard hut or sheltered pillow). Cheers, Jigs On 8/13/09 2:49 PM, " Merritt Clifton " <anmlpepl wrote: > > > > >> >as long as we have street-dogs, I hope the issue of garbage disposal >> >will not be resolved in countries like India and Sri Lanka,because >> >there will be more starvation and dogs dying of starvation and of >> >wounds due to fighting (and of course more dog-bites inflicted on >> >humans too!). > > If you do not eliminate garbage from the streets, you will > always have street dogs, feasting on the garbage and the rats who > also eat the garbage -- and you will always have annoyed people > poisoning dogs, shooting dogs, clubbing dogs, etc., along with > dogs suffering from intestinal worms, mange, and the many other > untreated conditions that afflict street dogs. > > If your goal is to reduce the universe of suffering, you > need to look at the bigger picture, and not be distracted from doing > what reduces suffering the most by the temporary side effects. > > You also need to take a closer look at the situation. Street > dogs who have come to depend on a particular source of refuse will > not just starve if it no longer exists. They will look for it and > hope for it to reappear for a few days, and then either find other > local food sources or move on to other places where abundant garbage > remains -- albeit perhaps in temporary custody of monkeys, who may > be chased back to the trees, to their great advantage whether they > know it or not, because monkeys who take to living on the streets > tend to run afoul of some of the same unpleasant fates as street > dogs, but also may be captured and sold to laboratories. > >> > Until we have enough shelters or at least regular feeders for strays, >> >I don't think animal-welfare-association should promote better garbage >> >disposal-systems. > > You will never have enough shelters to accommodate all the > dogs if you do not reduce the carrying capacity of the habitat. > > Sterilization keeps the dogs who currently occupy a habitat > from breeding up to the carrying capacity. Reducing the carrying > capacity prevents more dogs from migrating in. > > You have to do both, or have street dogs forever. > Sterilizing street dogs in absence of reducing carrying capacity is > basically just inviting dogs from elsewhere to come and be poisoned, > shot, clubbed, and so forth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 14, 2009 Report Share Posted August 14, 2009 >the migrating dogs are already existing, they are not being created >by the presence of a food-source, they have been dumped somewhere >and then they go in search of food. The behavior of people who dump animals has actually been studied here & there over the past 150 years, with some relatively recent formal studies building on the observations of generations past. The single biggest factor in determining whether a person will dump an animal turns out to have nothing intrinsic to do with either the animal, such as gender or state of health, or the person's personal circumstances. These may be contributing factors, but they are not the biggest. Rather, people will dump an animal if they believe there is a place to dump an animal where someone else will provide food. Most of the people who dump animals will not dump them if they believe they will be killed or starve. Among the most influential studies of animal-dumping behavior ever done was marketing research by the San Francisco SPCA in the early 1980s which discovered that animal-dumpers were not bringing their unwanted pets to shelters because they knew that the shelters of that era were killing most of the animals they received -- so the San Francisco SPCA went no-kill in 1984, and animal abandonment in San Francisco almost entirely stopped within another few years. Dozens of other humane societies that formerly killed surplus animals have now had the same experience: when they first go no-kill, they are inundated with abandoned animals who formerly were left wherever the dumpers thought they might find food. Usually this was wherever some misguided do-gooder was leaving food out to be seen by passers-by, thereby attracting endless abandonment. Open feeding causes what DELTA Rescue founder Leo Grillo eventually named " The Billboard Effect, " first documented in Los Angeles by Grillo and others, now widely known in animal rescue circles: where food or food dishes are visible, animal abandonment increases exponentially. When caught, the dumpers often admit that they dumped their animals only because they believed they could do it without harmful consequence. Otherwise the animals would have been taken to shelters, or be kept a while longer, in hopes of finding some other solution to a perceived problem short of actually killing the animal. People who don't have scruples about killing animals don't go to the trouble of abandoning them; they just kill them and be done with it. In Asia, the major incentive to dumping animals -- and this too has been studied in several different places -- is the belief that Buddhist, Hindu, or Jain temple monks and nuns will feed abandoned animals, as historically they often have, so temples are frequently inundated with dumped former pets. Refuse dumps are also a common animal abandonment locale worldwide, again because people believe animals will find food there. And almost every individual rescuer is familiar with the phenomenon of animals being left on his/her doorstep, or tossed over the fence, just as soon as word gets around that this person will feed animals. The solution is to stop providing incentives to abandonment. Stop giving people the illusion that someone else will take care of their responsibilities. Instead of endlessly feeding dumped animals, work on sterilization, mange treatment, behavioral remediation, and every other kind of intervention that can help keep pets in homes. Incidentally, when the San Francisco SPCA turned the corner in that direction, their fundraising success increased 18-fold in nine years. Hardly anyone is going to donate to a program that advocates leaving the streets full of garbage to feed abandoned pets, but multitudes support programs that keep pets healthy and in homes, off the streets. -- Merritt Clifton Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE P.O. Box 960 Clinton, WA 98236 Telephone: 360-579-2505 Fax: 360-579-2575 E-mail: anmlpepl Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; for free sample, send address.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 _____ padma [padmaeva] Sunday, August 16, 2009 2:06 AM 'Merritt Clifton' RE: Garbage Dear Merrit, Thank you for sharing all these details. I didn't know about all this research going on, but of course I know, that people dump at places, which they believe to be relatively safe for the animals. Though I must say, that here they don't go very much out of their way to find a really safe place, otherwise all the dumping should take place at the existing shelters (all are no-kill), but much more dumping goes on at temples, schools, markets, canteens, hotels and of course garbage-dumps. The reason for this is probably, that the few shelters we have here are bit out of the way and most people don't make a special trip for the purpose, they just take the unwanted cat or dog along when they go somewhere and leave them somewhere along the way, and they don't seem to really check whether the place is really safe, otherwise they should know, that not all monks really feed the dogs dumped at their temples, that most school-principles and hotel-owners very quickly get the dumped animal re-dumped somewhere else, and that some of the formerly open garbage-dumps now are closed (and therefore still available for monkeys and cats, but not any more for dogs). Whether they would really look for another solution if such safe or believed to be safe places were not available, I have my doubts, at least here in Sri Lanka. It is the same carelessness and laziness, which leads to garbage-dumps and to animal-dumping, sorting refuse and disposing of it properly is more work than just throwing it, taking a female dog to a clinic and getting her spayed takes more effort, than just leaving her somewhere. If more sense of responsibility makes its way into Sri Lankan society, the streets will get cleaner and dumping of animals will get less. Until then we have to do both: preventive work through ABC of course. and looking after those, for whom ABC came too late. Now, what really would interest me: how did the California SPCA cope with the bigger number of dogs being surrendered to them after going no-kill? Were they able to increase adoption too or did the 18 fold fundraising enable them to keep the increased lot sheltered permanently? Here all shelters are no-kill, but all are permanently overcrowded too and all of us receive many more requests to take in animals than we can actually accept. When we receive requests, which we have to decline, we offer assistance to find another solution (free sterilization, treatment or whatever), if that does not work out, I personally don't follow up what eventually happened, but I suspect in most cases it has added to the number of dumped animals. So it's always tricky: if I refuse a female pup, later I may find her on the road together with five daughters, and then I have to spay all six of them. However, that's still ok, but if I don't find her or can't catch her, she reproduces endlessly. In this case it would have been better to take in the pup, but then the problem is: even with an adoption-rate of 90% and just 10% remaining, there is bound to be an ever-growing permanent crowd. Still I have not seen anywhere a satisfactory solution. So please let me know how no-kill shelters manage in U.S. Thanks Padma _____ Merritt Clifton [anmlpepl] Friday, August 14, 2009 5:24 AM padma RE: Garbage the migrating dogs are already existing, they are not being created by the presence of a food-source, they have been dumped somewhere and then they go in search of food. The behavior of people who dump animals has actually been studied here & there over the past 150 years, with some relatively recent formal studies building on the observations of generations past. The single biggest factor in determining whether a person will dump an animal turns out to have nothing intrinsic to do with either the animal, such as gender or state of health, or the person's personal circumstances. These may be contributing factors, but they are not the biggest. Rather, people will dump an animal if they believe there is a place to dump an animal where someone else will provide food. Most of the people who dump animals will not dump them if they believe they will be killed or starve. Among the most influential studies of animal-dumping behavior ever done was marketing research by the San Francisco SPCA in the early 1980s which discovered that animal-dumpers were not bringing their unwanted pets to shelters because they knew that the shelters of that era were killing most of the animals they received -- so the San Francisco SPCA went no-kill in 1984, and animal abandonment in San Francisco almost entirely stopped within another few years. Dozens of other humane societies that formerly killed surplus animals have now had the same experience: when they first go no-kill, they are inundated with abandoned animals who formerly were left wherever the dumpers thought they might find food. Usually this was wherever some misguided do-gooder was leaving food out to be seen by passers-by, thereby attracting endless abandonment. Open feeding causes what DELTA Rescue founder Leo Grillo eventually named " The Billboard Effect, " first documented in Los Angeles by Grillo and others, now widely known in animal rescue circles: where food or food dishes are visible, animal abandonment increases exponentially. When caught, the dumpers often admit that they dumped their animals only because they believed they could do it without harmful consequence. Otherwise the animals would have been taken to shelters, or be kept a while longer, in hopes of finding some other solution to a perceived problem short of actually killing the animal. People who don't have scruples about killing animals don't go to the trouble of abandoning them; they just kill them and be done with it. In Asia, the major incentive to dumping animals -- and this too has been studied in several different places -- is the belief that Buddhist, Hindu, or Jain temple monks and nuns will feed abandoned animals, as historically they often have, so temples are frequently inundated with dumped former pets. Refuse dumps are also a common animal abandonment locale worldwide, again because people believe animals will find food there. And almost every individual rescuer is familiar with the phenomenon of animals being left on his/her doorstep, or tossed over the fence, just as soon as word gets around that this person will feed animals. The solution is to stop providing incentives to abandonment. Stop giving people the illusion that someone else will take care of their responsibilities. Instead of endlessly feeding dumped animals, work on sterilization, mange treatment, behavioral remediation, and every other kind of intervention that can help keep pets in homes. Incidentally, when the San Francisco SPCA turned the corner in that direction, their fundraising success increased 18-fold in nine years. Hardly anyone is going to donate to a program that advocates leaving the streets full of garbage to feed abandoned pets, but multitudes support programs that keep pets healthy and in homes, off the streets. -- Merritt Clifton Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE P.O. Box 960 Clinton, WA 98236 Telephone: 360-579-2505 Fax: 360-579-2575 E-mail: anmlpepl Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; for free sample, send address.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 It seems I need to become still more patient. won't live the 40 years to see the change taking place here. may be the 15 years to promote adoption. just today had a phone-call from Champa regarding a meeting we have today with the University Vice Chancellor and asked her whether we should have a KACPAW - SOFA joint-dog-show in town, not only to offer our dogs for adoption, but also as an educational event. I hope we'll find the time for it soon. It is actually the shelter-work, which takes up most of our time and leaves us only few hours of the day to do the work, which should have priority. though I cannot see myself ever turning a blind eye to the immediate need of the individual animal at hand, you convinced me, that we have to set our priorities right. _____ Merritt Clifton [anmlpepl] Monday, August 17, 2009 5:55 AM padma RE: Garbage Whether they would really look for another solution if such safe or believed to be safe places were not available, I have my doubts, at least here in Sri Lanka. It is the same carelessness and laziness, which leads to garbage-dumps and to animal-dumping, sorting refuse and disposing of it properly is more work than just throwing it, taking a female dog to a clinic and getting her spayed takes more effort, than just leaving her somewhere. All of that was typical of the U.S too when I first covered animal & environmental news 40 years ago -- & I was working in the San Francisco Bay area, supposedly the most progressive part of the country. Now, what really would interest me: how did the California SPCA cope with the bigger number of dogs being surrendered to them after going no-kill? Were they able to increase adoption too or did the 18 fold fundraising enable them to keep the increased lot sheltered permanently? Initially the San Francisco SPCA struggled, but that forced them to become much more proactive about fundraising, recruiting volunteers, and promoting adoptions. Within 15 years they were adopting out so many animals that they had to bring them in from outlying communities. 30 years ago about 14% of the dogs in the U.S. were adopted from shelters and 16% were adopted as found strays. Now we have very few stays to find, and adoptions from shelters are up to 28%. So please let me know how no-kill shelters manage in U.S. See next e-mail. I have actually plotted out the year-by-year transitions from the high-volume abandonment and killing of 40 years ago to the present. Effective sterilization outreach accounts for about 95%. Everything else people do adds up to not more than 5%. Sheltering is actually the smallest part of it, to the point where -- as the Costa Ricans eventually realized -- having or not having shelters is almost irrelevant. If you have them, fine; if not, building shelters is not a priority. -- Merritt Clifton Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE P.O. Box 960 Clinton, WA 98236 Telephone: 360-579-2505 Fax: 360-579-2575 E-mail: anmlpepl Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; for free sample, send address.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.